WEATHER »

U.S participation in invasion of Libya…

Necessary and I support it 34% 71 votes
I do not support this action. 65% 135 votes
206 total votes

Comments

Independent Discussion Guidelines

Libya has not been invaded. Get your facts straight and report them without your editorial spin, Indy. The question should be "Should the US participate in establishing a no-fly zone over Libya in accordance with the UN Security Council resolution".

JohnLocke (anonymous profile)
March 21, 2011 at 10:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I voted NO!

I think a better question would be, "Does the Executive Branch of Government have the Constitutional Authority to Declare War on Libya"

Who cares what the UN thinks or agrees with, a Declaration of War is solely vested in Congress. The President is not the Worlds Chief of Police but it sure seems that way in the last 50 years. Congress, I can't Hear You.

howgreenwasmyvalley (anonymous profile)
March 22, 2011 at 4:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Obama apparently thinks he's King. What's the goal of going to Libya? What's the exit strategy?. Why are we handing off leadership to France? Too bad nobody gave a damn about Iran's Government murdering their people who were protesting to have their votes count and their voices heard. Thanks to Progressives, we have this type of President in office. Makes Carter and Bush look like geniuses.

NoHollabackGirl (anonymous profile)
March 22, 2011 at 8:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

@ howgreen - once again, we have not invaded or declared war on Libya.

@NoHolla- If Obama thinks he's king, then why is France in the lead? A more interesting question is why we have not intervened in Yemen and Bahrain, who are also shooting their people. Could it be that Obama is a sensitive to oil supplies as Bush?

JohnLocke (anonymous profile)
March 23, 2011 at 8:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)

And what about the Ivory Coast? Sudan?
Who would NoHolla have as their ideal President (living candidates preferred)?

EZK (anonymous profile)
March 23, 2011 at 7:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

PS
I'm hard-pressed to call Obama "Progressive".

EZK (anonymous profile)
March 23, 2011 at 7:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Well John,

Korea - Thurman

Vietnam - IKE, JFK, LBJ

Cambodia - Nixon

Grenada, Panama - Reagan

Iraq, Afghanistan - Bush

Libya - Obama

Read the Constitution, I don't see a clause under which the President gets to engage in Police actions at will. Not a War, well, "What do you call dumping 300 million dollars of ordinance on a foreign County + the 100's of millions of support costs?" If it looks like a Duck and walks like a Duck, it is a Duck. I have no problem attacking Libya as long as the Constitution is followed.

Post WWII Police Actions are getting old. We have given House of Saud, Bahrain, Egypt etc. state of the act weapons, let them
Police their own backyards.

Are we going to support the rebels in Bahrain or Saud?

The Executive Branch needs to be reined in.

Lois, I can't hear you!

howgreenwasmyvalley (anonymous profile)
March 24, 2011 at 9:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I do not support Obama's Libya War.

Well folks meet you new leader, same as the old one. Have we learned nothing from Afganistan? Iraq? Even Pulitzer Prize-winning conservative columnist George Will, stated this is a bad idea. This, like our many of our other foreign 'contingencies' is totally unconstitutional.

Obama needs to go, so do many other Democrats and Republicans. US foreign 'defense' presence needs to stop.

It is so sad that so many people came out and supported Obama in 2008, who said he would shut down Guantanamo and end foreign occupations/wars, and now won't call him on his sh1+. Just like the when Bush ran on not being the 'world's police' and non-interventionism and Republicans did not cannibalize him when he expanded the size of government and began to police the world.

Both sides have been betrayed, we need to work together, otherwise next stop Pakistan and Yemen.

antiwar.com
peacerally.org

Tucker (anonymous profile)
March 24, 2011 at 12:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

@JohnLocke if France was running the operation why does the White House keep bleating they are turning over command and control soon...

pointssouth (anonymous profile)
March 24, 2011 at 5:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I wish he was as passionate for the protesters in Wisconsin and Ohio., BTW there's a new oil leak in the Gulf.

EZK (anonymous profile)
March 25, 2011 at 2:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Good scoop for the Indy to get the excloo that USA has INVADED Libya!

David_Pritchett (David Pritchett)
March 26, 2011 at 7:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)

It's a pre-emptive scoop.

EZK (anonymous profile)
March 26, 2011 at 1:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

howgreen: Presidents have involved the US in 'police actions' for decades. One might wonder if it's not legal then why the antiwar crowd hasn't pursued legal action. And oh my yes by all means lets depend on Lois Capps to save us - or not. I'd rather have someone with a few brain cells and the ability to think independently (of Pelosi) and tell the truth. That ain't Lois.

pointsouth: Good question. the easy answer is that France snookered the US - again. France was the big noise in Europe pushing for a no fly zone and put about 4 planes into action. As the big gorilla in the free world, the US gets the lions' share of the action. As to "bleating" - I rather suspect the issue is that no other country has the cojones to take over leadership.

David & EZK: It's a BS scoop, but serves Nicky's need for sensationalism.

JohnLocke (anonymous profile)
March 26, 2011 at 7:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Pentagon: U.S. and U.K. Forces Launch Missiles 3/19/2011 5:46:18 PM

U.S. and British ships and submarines on Saturday fired more than 110 Tomahawk missiles at 20 air-defense system sites inside Libya, the Pentagon's Vice Adm. William E. Gortney said.

http://online.wsj.com/video/pentagon-...

About 2,200 Marines from the 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit will take part in support operations based aboard USS Kearsarge at sea. Those support operations have thus far included air strikes and one rescue operation. The overall mission is to help end the violence directed at the Libyan people.

UPDATE: To date, the 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit has conducted numerous successful airstrikes against Muammar al-Qadhafi regime forces as part of Joint Task Force Odyssey Dawn supporting the international response to protect civilians in Libya under threat of attack by Qadhafi military forces. The 26th MEU has also conducted a successful Tactical Recovery of Aircraft and Personnel mission in support of two U.S. Air Force F-15 pilots after their airplane crashed east of Benghazi, Libya, Mar. 21.

http://www.wcti12.com/news/27257042/d...

loonpt (anonymous profile)
March 26, 2011 at 8:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Libyan rebel commander admits his fighters have al-Qaeda links
Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi, the Libyan rebel leader, has said jihadists who fought against allied troops in Iraq are on the front lines of the battle against Muammar Gaddafi's regime

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/world...

Libya: Six injured as US team botches rescue of downed airmen

Libyans said US helicopter came in with guns firing, creating panic and wounding onlookers after F-15E Strike Eagle crash

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/...

loonpt (anonymous profile)
March 26, 2011 at 8:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Our standing in the Islamic world would benefit from another Bosnia save-type operation, but unfortunately Ghadafy is a Moslem too. But IF we do it right, the teeming young www-heads may thank us someday in a more-democratic Middle East. They've ASKED for help this time.

Where IS that crystal ball, anyway.......

Adonis_Tate (anonymous profile)
March 27, 2011 at 2:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I will have to break with some of my peers here. I sympathize with the aspirations of the Libyan people. If I were Libyan, I would want help to get rid of the entrenched dictator that is Gaddafi. This seems more right than Iraq or Afghanistan ever did. And as AdonisTate says, there could be long-term benefits in a region that's boiling with unprecedented change right now.

Lots of potential for downside, etc. But the right thing to do IMO.

EastBeach (anonymous profile)
March 27, 2011 at 1:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I sympathise with the Libyan people as well, but I'm not convinced that getting rid of Gadhafi via a western backed coup is really what the people of Libya want. British intelligence (MI6) has been in that country for decades going after their resources (oil), and there is plenty of documented evidence that they are the ones who have been fomenting the Libyan rebels against Gadhafi.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/margolis/m...

Of course I posted above that Al Qaeda is being linked with many of the original rebel groups in Libya. This doesn't make any sense when you look at the situation through the narrative we are given in the US media. It does begin to make sense when you see Al Qaeda more as a tool of western intelligence, an arm of western intelligence that is fomented, funded and used to create conflicts that the US can then come in and resolve in a way that best conforms with western interests. That's why you are seeing on TV that we aren't at war and there have been no civilian casualties, it's all propaganda. We dropped over 120 tomahawk missiles about a week ago, but apparently only killed people we aren't liberating. How do they tell the difference between people we are bombing and people we are liberating? Do you really trust the same military industrial complex, just because Obama is heading it?

loonpt (anonymous profile)
March 27, 2011 at 3:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

and the "economist" uses a term, "mission creep". the humanitarian invasion leads to an escalation ot time and FUNDS

richardsinclair (anonymous profile)
March 28, 2011 at 5:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I wonder how many readers are aware that the Libyan rebel leader and his group have ties to the Taliban, and other Islamist groups? If you support the war in Libya, then by extension you are supporting militant Islam.

Obviously, this invasion has NOTHING to do with "helping the Libyan rebels" and "preventing a massacre". The US does not start, or engage in wars, to protect ordinary people in foreign lands. It sounds as if the term "sweet light crude" is unfamiliar to many. If Libya's chief exports were hummus, dates (and tourism), would be be spending $250 million PER DAY to bomb that country? Redundant question perhaps....

Also, don't forget: the new war is yet another corporate welfare hand-out to the bomb makers and arms industry... the stocks of Tomahawks and other ordnance are being rapidly depleted and the new orders to replenish will be greeted with much hand rubbing by the shareholders in the military-industrial-security-entertainment complex.

bloggulator (anonymous profile)
March 30, 2011 at 10:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I wonder where bloggulator gets his/her info re ties between the Libyan rebels Taliban etc. Libya contributes less than 2% of the world oil supply and is not exactly therefore a stragetic supplier. And given his closing comments about corporate welfare, one might suggest that bloggulator is not exactly a reliable source of factual information but more a lefty disseminator of disinformation.

JohnLocke (anonymous profile)
March 31, 2011 at 4:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Interesting that 2/3 of the respondents to this poll apparently believe that the world should stand by while Quadafi murders his own people. Same mentality as the German citizens during the Holocaust. For shame.

JohnLocke (anonymous profile)
March 31, 2011 at 8:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

If you support any war for any type of government or social change then you are living in the dark ages, do not know how to research facts on the Internet and do not understand how all wars are for control by the few over the many. For once Google "Timeline of the Rothschilds" and see how not one war, the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, the Civil War, WW1, WW2 and now WW3 are all scams by the elites to control the masses. BTW Republican and Democrats are inventions by this same crowd. So either quit drinking the Kool Aid or stay asleep, manipulated and ignorant.

contactjohn (anonymous profile)
April 1, 2011 at 9:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Well, gosh, contactjohn, apparently you have it all figured out and there is just no debating with you. But it does seem that you may have missed something - to put it in your lexicon, it is Quadafi (the few) vs the rest of the world (the many) here. It would be interesting to know how you would react if it were your family being murdered.

JohnLocke (anonymous profile)
April 2, 2011 at 8:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)

John Locke, There is a reason the Founders vested Congress with the Power to Declare War. It paid homage to when the King would on a whim create and fight wars.

I am certainly NOT anti-war but I sure am PRO Constitution.

Should we go into Syria, Ivory Coast, Yemen, how about Bahrain, it will never end. Should we be the worlds Nanny?

As long as Congress acts I am all for it. Presidents constantly becoming involved in Police Actions should be Constitutionally
restrained.

One of the reasons this Country has so many problems is the Constitution is being ignored, all those that took the oath should be impeached. Without the Constitutional Rule of Law, you have anarchy.

howgreenwasmyvalley (anonymous profile)
April 2, 2011 at 9:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)

All that Rothschild nonsense is just veiled Anti-Semitism.

EZK (anonymous profile)
April 2, 2011 at 2:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

@howgreen..: Point taken, but the President does have the power to command the armed forces and put them into action as he sees fit. Our action in Libya, in accordance with the UN resolution and in concert with a range of allied nations (isn't that what folks said Bush should have done?), is not a declaration of war. Remotely taking out Qadafi's air power and ground defenses is one thing; US boots on the ground is another. I'm much in favor of the former and much against the latter. Let's hope Congress quits with the partisan BS coming from all sides (not that they ever did THAT before) and takes a position. Of course, that would require courage, something in very short supply among our partisans, er, politicians.

The UN has taken no position on Syria, Ivory Coast, Yemen, Bahrain, so consistency of policy would say no, we don't go there.

I am a great believer in the rule of law, unlike some of our local bank-burning grayhairs, but I'm not real keen on mass murder either. And on a truly wild tangent, a Qadafi-like government would find it hard to prevail against a well-armed citizenry.

JohnLocke (anonymous profile)
April 2, 2011 at 10:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

So John Locke,

Actions taken by the President depends on positions taken by the United Nations. I reject "Responsibility to Protect" and I certainly reject the United Nations and the New World Order Concept. Rwanda, did we go there, how about Darfur? The United Nations and the League of Nations before are failures and have NO claim on our Constitution.

Last time I looked the United States is still a Sovereign Constitutional Republic and should not be basing foreign policy on the whims of a quasi World Government of crooks like the UN. Did not the UN have Libya on their Human Rights Commission? The UN is a joke.

howgreenwasmyvalley (anonymous profile)
April 3, 2011 at 9:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)

No, this action taken by the President was in accordance with a position taken by the UN, not dependent on it. I happen to think he did the right thing, coming as I do from a family that survived the murdering wallpaperhanger in Germany. My point about the UN was simply that, unlike Bush, Obama had the legitimacy of the UN behind him. While you and I many not hold the UN in high regard, others do. Probably a good thing you or I are not in the diplomatic corps. And in any case, Obama did not declare war on Libya, which was my original point.

JohnLocke (anonymous profile)
April 3, 2011 at 7:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

John,

Clinton did not have SEX with that woman also. A War is a War is War. Lets invade Iran they kill and torture, just like Syria and just like Yemen or lets create another Soviet Afghanistan, a CIA War in Libya. As long as the UN passes its George Soros approval were in the clear.

Only problem that damn Constitution does not provide for such actions.

howgreenwasmyvalley (anonymous profile)
April 4, 2011 at 3:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

And if it were you and your family being murdered? And no one helped?

JohnLocke (anonymous profile)
April 5, 2011 at 8:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)

John Locke,

You have a Euro-Centric view.

I invite you to re-read the Founding Documents of the United States especially the Federalists and anti-Federalists papers.

Europe has been slaughtering its populations for thousands of years. The American Experiment was to learn from the past and go forward with Ordered Liberty and reject Europe and the Old World.

My Grandfather in WWI and Father in WWII went back to Europe for another round, I really think Europe is the disease that needs to be left behind. The Pommys and other countries still waste money on a Queen, what a joke.

The Middle East/North Africa is mostly a European Colonial Cluster F.

Sorry, Europe has it wrong. The Founders knew this, the more we go backwards towards European views/politics(socialism) the weaker as a Country we become.

Trying to be all things to all people, is a recipe for disaster.

As long as Congress debates the issue and declares War, then I am ready and willing to help. The Founders did this for a reason, you need to take the time to study Why.

American needs to rediscover the wisdom of the Founders.

Its funny how the Europeans always want us to do the fighting and cleanup their messes.

howgreenwasmyvalley (anonymous profile)
April 5, 2011 at 11:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Uh, Libya is not in Europe. But thank you for your history lecture. Can you spell xenophobe?

JohnLocke (anonymous profile)
April 5, 2011 at 12:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The Europe our country's founders rejected was monarchial. There are very few monarchies left in Europe, and those that remain are pretty much just to attract tourists. In fact the European democracies have modelled themselves on our's, and in fact our Revolution sparked several in Europe, including France's. Even Fidel Castro was inspired by our Revolution and only sought Soviet support after he was either ignored or rejected by the US *. All in all, many things European are good nowadays.
*Not willing to look up the exact action or nonaction.

EZK (anonymous profile)
April 5, 2011 at 10:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I VOTE YES!
We are a Nation of WAR!

dou4now.

dou4now (anonymous profile)
April 10, 2011 at 5:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)